Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

The greatest living mathematician just reframed everything we think we know about the mind. Terence Tao. IQ above 200. Youngest gold medalist in Math Olympiad history. Fields Medal winner. His take on AI should stop you cold. Tao: "This whole era of AI is teaching us that our idea...

AiEvolutio58513's profile picture

AI Evolution

14,881 subscribers

59,143 просмотров • 20 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологииОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."
1:21

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

Big Brain AI

69,536 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The intelligence we are building is not artificial. It never was. Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Eric Horvitz just reframed the entire foundation of the AI arms race with one sentence. The tech industry calls it Artificial Intelligence. That word is wrong. Horvitz: “I don’t actually like the term artificial intelligence. I wish the field was called computational intelligence because I think it applies to biological nervous systems as well as machines, and together we can go far.” We are not building a digital imitation of the human brain. We are scaling the exact same computational physics that created biological awareness and transferring it into silicon. Your mind and a massive AI data center run on the same underlying rules. The transition isn’t artificial. It is universal. And here is where it gets deeply unsettling. Tech optimists always fall back on the same comfort. Humans hold the steering wheel. Our values guide the machine. Horvitz acknowledges this. Horvitz: “We’ll take a humanistic standpoint here, always being on top of things and guiding with our values and our preferences and our goals.” Then the caveat that changes everything. Horvitz: “As much as they might be shaped over time by the machines we work with.” You cannot interact with a superintelligence at scale without it quietly rewiring your psychological baseline. The values you use to command the machine will be shaped by the machine you are commanding. The frameworks you use to perceive reality will be constructed by the system you believe you are directing. That feedback loop started the moment you asked an AI what to think about something. Most people haven’t noticed yet. Horvitz: “I think in our own lifetimes we will all experience incredible breakthroughs in understanding biology, with applications in medicine, in healthcare, that will be named as AI breakthroughs.” Horvitz: “It’s gonna accelerate over the next 10 to 15 years.” Because biological systems and machine networks both operate on computational intelligence, a sufficiently advanced AI can solve the human body like a math equation. The architects who win the next decade will not just control the digital economy. They will control the physical building blocks of life itself. The line between silicon and carbon was always an illusion. And once humanity fully realizes that, the question of whether we are using the intelligence or it is using us becomes impossible to answer. Because by then, we will be the same thing.
1:05

The intelligence we are building is not artificial. It never was. Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Eric Horvitz just reframed the entire foundation of the AI arms race with one sentence. The tech industry calls it Artificial Intelligence. That word is wrong. Horvitz: “I don’t actually like the term artificial intelligence. I wish the field was called computational intelligence because I think it applies to biological nervous systems as well as machines, and together we can go far.” We are not building a digital imitation of the human brain. We are scaling the exact same computational physics that created biological awareness and transferring it into silicon. Your mind and a massive AI data center run on the same underlying rules. The transition isn’t artificial. It is universal. And here is where it gets deeply unsettling. Tech optimists always fall back on the same comfort. Humans hold the steering wheel. Our values guide the machine. Horvitz acknowledges this. Horvitz: “We’ll take a humanistic standpoint here, always being on top of things and guiding with our values and our preferences and our goals.” Then the caveat that changes everything. Horvitz: “As much as they might be shaped over time by the machines we work with.” You cannot interact with a superintelligence at scale without it quietly rewiring your psychological baseline. The values you use to command the machine will be shaped by the machine you are commanding. The frameworks you use to perceive reality will be constructed by the system you believe you are directing. That feedback loop started the moment you asked an AI what to think about something. Most people haven’t noticed yet. Horvitz: “I think in our own lifetimes we will all experience incredible breakthroughs in understanding biology, with applications in medicine, in healthcare, that will be named as AI breakthroughs.” Horvitz: “It’s gonna accelerate over the next 10 to 15 years.” Because biological systems and machine networks both operate on computational intelligence, a sufficiently advanced AI can solve the human body like a math equation. The architects who win the next decade will not just control the digital economy. They will control the physical building blocks of life itself. The line between silicon and carbon was always an illusion. And once humanity fully realizes that, the question of whether we are using the intelligence or it is using us becomes impossible to answer. Because by then, we will be the same thing.

Dustin

164,460 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Marc Andreessen posted that "High IQ experts work for mid IQ generalists." We asked him to elaborate. "So I think two things are true: One is we all underrate the importance of intelligence." "Even just the very idea that some people are smarter than other people just really freaks people out, and people don't like to talk about it. And we really struggle with that as a society." "On the other hand, the people who are in the fields that involve intelligence probably overrate intelligence. And you might even coin a term like maybe 'intelligence supremacist' or something like that." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg
2:02

Marc Andreessen posted that "High IQ experts work for mid IQ generalists." We asked him to elaborate. "So I think two things are true: One is we all underrate the importance of intelligence." "Even just the very idea that some people are smarter than other people just really freaks people out, and people don't like to talk about it. And we really struggle with that as a society." "On the other hand, the people who are in the fields that involve intelligence probably overrate intelligence. And you might even coin a term like maybe 'intelligence supremacist' or something like that." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg

a16z

456,354 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Martin Casado on why artificial intelligence is the wrong term and why a16z's new fund is called the Machine Age Fund: "Artificial intelligence was the wrong word. It's machine intelligence... because it's not how humans think. It is a cache of human thought." "To date, we don't know how to take an AI with no knowledge and put it out in the world and have it reconstruct language. That's not what we've done. We've built something that can learn off of everything we've already learned and then use that in a productive way." "AI is a general term that goes back 70 years in computer science formally that applies to many different things, and of course it's got a lot of baggage. Either from science fiction or from you know, Nick Bostrom who wrote about it." "You want to emphasize the machine part of it... You've really come to a place where you pour money into something and then you're limited by the actual machines below it. It's a nod to the hardware component is so significant in this wave, and we want to acknowledge that." martin_casado Erik Torenberg
1:22

Martin Casado on why artificial intelligence is the wrong term and why a16z's new fund is called the Machine Age Fund: "Artificial intelligence was the wrong word. It's machine intelligence... because it's not how humans think. It is a cache of human thought." "To date, we don't know how to take an AI with no knowledge and put it out in the world and have it reconstruct language. That's not what we've done. We've built something that can learn off of everything we've already learned and then use that in a productive way." "AI is a general term that goes back 70 years in computer science formally that applies to many different things, and of course it's got a lot of baggage. Either from science fiction or from you know, Nick Bostrom who wrote about it." "You want to emphasize the machine part of it... You've really come to a place where you pour money into something and then you're limited by the actual machines below it. It's a nod to the hardware component is so significant in this wave, and we want to acknowledge that." martin_casado Erik Torenberg

a16z

41,131 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.
2:54

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.

Ian Miles

13,096 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

A Talk About AI That Will Blow Your Mind. It Did In 1998 When I Attended The Talk. I just found this video from 1998 when I attended this talk by Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna and Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz to explore how machine intelligence might evolve in relation to our own. I never thought I would see this again and it had a great influence on me in the AI I was building in that era and on to today. But ai just found a copy. I certainly did not run around with a VHS recorder so I am blown away that this exists. Now you can see what I saw. At that time, the internet was still young, and artificial intelligence belonged mostly to science fiction. Yet many of the questions we raised then have become part of daily life. In this conversation, it was explored whether intelligence is best understood as logic and computation, or as something embodied, participatory, and alive. Can the mind be reduced to code, or does life itself depend on forms of knowing that no algorithm can contain? AI now outpace us in speed, reach, and memory. Yet the deeper mystery is not how far they can go, but what they reveal about mind and ourselves. Will AI reproduce the limitations of our mechanistic worldview, or might it help us rediscover dimensions of mind that transcend machinery altogether? It's striking how near we now are to the possibilities we once only speculated about. Quantum computing, self-learning systems, large language models very much as Terence describes—and the looming prospect of superintelligence—have moved from the margins to the mainstream. But the heart of the conversation remains just as relevant today, if not more so: what is consciousness, and how might we participate in its unfolding evolution?
42:37

A Talk About AI That Will Blow Your Mind. It Did In 1998 When I Attended The Talk. I just found this video from 1998 when I attended this talk by Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna and Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz to explore how machine intelligence might evolve in relation to our own. I never thought I would see this again and it had a great influence on me in the AI I was building in that era and on to today. But ai just found a copy. I certainly did not run around with a VHS recorder so I am blown away that this exists. Now you can see what I saw. At that time, the internet was still young, and artificial intelligence belonged mostly to science fiction. Yet many of the questions we raised then have become part of daily life. In this conversation, it was explored whether intelligence is best understood as logic and computation, or as something embodied, participatory, and alive. Can the mind be reduced to code, or does life itself depend on forms of knowing that no algorithm can contain? AI now outpace us in speed, reach, and memory. Yet the deeper mystery is not how far they can go, but what they reveal about mind and ourselves. Will AI reproduce the limitations of our mechanistic worldview, or might it help us rediscover dimensions of mind that transcend machinery altogether? It's striking how near we now are to the possibilities we once only speculated about. Quantum computing, self-learning systems, large language models very much as Terence describes—and the looming prospect of superintelligence—have moved from the margins to the mainstream. But the heart of the conversation remains just as relevant today, if not more so: what is consciousness, and how might we participate in its unfolding evolution?

Brian Roemmele

148,139 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Terence Tao proposes what he calls a "Copernican view of intelligence". Instead of buying into the common, one-dimensional narrative that artificial intelligence will simply evolve from "subhuman" to "superhuman" and ultimately make humanity entirely redundant, Tao urges us to look at the bigger picture. Much like the Copernican revolution proved the Earth is not the center of the universe, Tao suggests we need to realize that human intelligence isn't the only, or necessarily the highest, form of intellect. Historically, we have treated other forms of storing or creating knowledge—like animals, books, and computers—as secondary. However, we actually exist within a much richer universe of intelligence. Both human intelligence and computer intelligence possess their own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The true potential lies not in viewing them as direct competitors, but rather in focusing on collaboration. By working together, humans and computers can achieve additional things that neither could accomplish on their own, requiring us to think in much wider terms than just what humans or computers can do alone.
1:31

Terence Tao proposes what he calls a "Copernican view of intelligence". Instead of buying into the common, one-dimensional narrative that artificial intelligence will simply evolve from "subhuman" to "superhuman" and ultimately make humanity entirely redundant, Tao urges us to look at the bigger picture. Much like the Copernican revolution proved the Earth is not the center of the universe, Tao suggests we need to realize that human intelligence isn't the only, or necessarily the highest, form of intellect. Historically, we have treated other forms of storing or creating knowledge—like animals, books, and computers—as secondary. However, we actually exist within a much richer universe of intelligence. Both human intelligence and computer intelligence possess their own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The true potential lies not in viewing them as direct competitors, but rather in focusing on collaboration. By working together, humans and computers can achieve additional things that neither could accomplish on their own, requiring us to think in much wider terms than just what humans or computers can do alone.

Michał Podlewski

613,950 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.
0:34

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,474 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”
1:44

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

David Senra

12,759 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Jimmy Carr channeling Peter Thiel with something worth sitting with: "Minus the screens from any room, we're still living in the 1970s. Nothing's happened in physics since 1972. String theory has not got us anywhere." But here's where it gets interesting: "Take the compute power of AI and point it at physics… everything else in science is stamp collecting. Physics is the real thing. That gave us every bit of technology we have. What happens when you point AI at that?" He lays out two possible roads: 50× productivity and genuine human flourishing, or a future that goes "another way." AI unlocks physics within a decade. What do you want to come first: limitless energy, gravity control, new materials, or something we don't even have a word for yet? Interested in AI? Follow AI Evolution and never fall behind. I track ChatGPT, Claude, and every tool quietly changing how we work and create, then hand you the tested signals.
1:03

Jimmy Carr channeling Peter Thiel with something worth sitting with: "Minus the screens from any room, we're still living in the 1970s. Nothing's happened in physics since 1972. String theory has not got us anywhere." But here's where it gets interesting: "Take the compute power of AI and point it at physics… everything else in science is stamp collecting. Physics is the real thing. That gave us every bit of technology we have. What happens when you point AI at that?" He lays out two possible roads: 50× productivity and genuine human flourishing, or a future that goes "another way." AI unlocks physics within a decade. What do you want to come first: limitless energy, gravity control, new materials, or something we don't even have a word for yet? Interested in AI? Follow AI Evolution and never fall behind. I track ChatGPT, Claude, and every tool quietly changing how we work and create, then hand you the tested signals.

AI Evolution

162,335 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"I think among a lot of Democrats there's this kind of what psychologists would call 'learned helplessness' where you just think, 'Well we can't do anything about it. We have to wait till 2029' ... In New York with some people it's just like, 'Well we just have to do our things in New York and not worry about the rest of the country.' It does not work that way. We are one country. Our democracy can rise or fall on what this man is doing. And, it's not just our democracy. ... It directly affects our lives. The stability of our economy depends on the belief in the rule of law that people think we have a stable legal system, and it's hard to believe that today"
1:26

"I think among a lot of Democrats there's this kind of what psychologists would call 'learned helplessness' where you just think, 'Well we can't do anything about it. We have to wait till 2029' ... In New York with some people it's just like, 'Well we just have to do our things in New York and not worry about the rest of the country.' It does not work that way. We are one country. Our democracy can rise or fall on what this man is doing. And, it's not just our democracy. ... It directly affects our lives. The stability of our economy depends on the belief in the rule of law that people think we have a stable legal system, and it's hard to believe that today"

George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸

80,959 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 JUST NOW: Sec. Marco Rubio says it PERFECTLY 👏🏻 "The ideal behind America is the impossible. Someone tells you you can't do that, or that is never going to happen. The whole idea of America is audacious. The very idea of America that you could have a country founded on the principle that your rights come not from your government or from your leaders, your rights come from your creator!" "It was audacious idea. No one else believed that at the world at that time. And that's the foundation. But then beyond that, everything we've done since then is a nation, time and again." "How can you achieve some of the things? You know, we're going to put a man on the moon when President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth." "No one thought that was possible. We did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do, and no one else aspired to do." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
2:30

🚨 JUST NOW: Sec. Marco Rubio says it PERFECTLY 👏🏻 "The ideal behind America is the impossible. Someone tells you you can't do that, or that is never going to happen. The whole idea of America is audacious. The very idea of America that you could have a country founded on the principle that your rights come not from your government or from your leaders, your rights come from your creator!" "It was audacious idea. No one else believed that at the world at that time. And that's the foundation. But then beyond that, everything we've done since then is a nation, time and again." "How can you achieve some of the things? You know, we're going to put a man on the moon when President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth." "No one thought that was possible. We did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do, and no one else aspired to do." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

129,139 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

A jaw-on-the-floor moment for the whole team was when we had taught the robot to pick up a baggie and shake a usb-brick out with the left hand. During one rollout, it decided to do it with the right hand—and we all stopped. We were stunned, because no one taught it to do that. This was one of the first models with our pretrained base, and it was the moment we realized there was something here that was very different from what any of us had ever built before. We now know this to be part of the improvisational intelligence that emerges with large-scale pretraining on real manipulation data, and it continues to be one of the things that we believe to be worth pushing forward as capability. Our CTO and cofounder Andy Barry joined Association for Advancing Automation to share more about these moments, and how his time at Boston Dynamics and the Broad Institute drove him to focus on building the 🧠 for robots at Generalist. Full ep 👇
0:28

A jaw-on-the-floor moment for the whole team was when we had taught the robot to pick up a baggie and shake a usb-brick out with the left hand. During one rollout, it decided to do it with the right hand—and we all stopped. We were stunned, because no one taught it to do that. This was one of the first models with our pretrained base, and it was the moment we realized there was something here that was very different from what any of us had ever built before. We now know this to be part of the improvisational intelligence that emerges with large-scale pretraining on real manipulation data, and it continues to be one of the things that we believe to be worth pushing forward as capability. Our CTO and cofounder Andy Barry joined Association for Advancing Automation to share more about these moments, and how his time at Boston Dynamics and the Broad Institute drove him to focus on building the 🧠 for robots at Generalist. Full ep 👇

Generalist

11,117 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Coinbase CEO Explains “Reverse Prompting” and the Rise of the AI CEO Brian Armstrong: “One of the big pushes we made in the last year was we got our own internal hosted AI model that was connected to all of our data sources, right?” “So it's like every Slack message, every Google doc, Salesforce data, Confluence, you know.” “So now the data is all aggregated and I've started to ask it really… it's not just like prompting it, ‘Hey, can you write this kind of memo for me,’ or something.” “I'm asking these AI agents now, ‘As CEO, what should I be aware of in the company that I might not be aware of?’ And it'll tell me, ‘Did you know that there's actually disagreement on this team about the strategy?’ And I was like, actually, I didn't know that.” “This is like reverse prompting. So instead of telling the AI agent what you want it to do, you ask it what you should be thinking more about.” @jason: “It's a mentor. It's a coach.” Brian: “Yeah. Like, what could make me a better CEO? And it's like, ‘Well, I looked at how you spent your time in the last quarter and here's how you said that you wanted to spend it, but you actually spent 32% of your time on this instead of 20%.’” “I've asked it other questions like, ‘What's the thing that I changed my mind on the most over the last year?’ Things like that.” “It'll prompt you with information you should be thinking about instead of the other way around.” Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: Our episode is sponsored by the New York Stock Exchange - a modern marketplace and exchange for building the future. It all happens at the NYSE 🏛.
1:16

Coinbase CEO Explains “Reverse Prompting” and the Rise of the AI CEO Brian Armstrong: “One of the big pushes we made in the last year was we got our own internal hosted AI model that was connected to all of our data sources, right?” “So it's like every Slack message, every Google doc, Salesforce data, Confluence, you know.” “So now the data is all aggregated and I've started to ask it really… it's not just like prompting it, ‘Hey, can you write this kind of memo for me,’ or something.” “I'm asking these AI agents now, ‘As CEO, what should I be aware of in the company that I might not be aware of?’ And it'll tell me, ‘Did you know that there's actually disagreement on this team about the strategy?’ And I was like, actually, I didn't know that.” “This is like reverse prompting. So instead of telling the AI agent what you want it to do, you ask it what you should be thinking more about.” @jason: “It's a mentor. It's a coach.” Brian: “Yeah. Like, what could make me a better CEO? And it's like, ‘Well, I looked at how you spent your time in the last quarter and here's how you said that you wanted to spend it, but you actually spent 32% of your time on this instead of 20%.’” “I've asked it other questions like, ‘What's the thing that I changed my mind on the most over the last year?’ Things like that.” “It'll prompt you with information you should be thinking about instead of the other way around.” Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: Our episode is sponsored by the New York Stock Exchange - a modern marketplace and exchange for building the future. It all happens at the NYSE 🏛.

The All-In Podcast

80,524 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."
1:51

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Q: "After doing AI for so long, what have you learned about humans?" Sam Altman: "I grew up implicitly thinking that intelligence was this, like really special human thing and kind of somewhat magical. And I now think that it's sort of a fundamental property of matter..." It's a fascinating thought. As we peel back layers of scientific discovery, we do seem to distance ourselves from the "main character energy" role in the universe. Yet, even if we aren't unique in our intelligence, there's a profound importance in our human existence that needs preserving.
1:11

Q: "After doing AI for so long, what have you learned about humans?" Sam Altman: "I grew up implicitly thinking that intelligence was this, like really special human thing and kind of somewhat magical. And I now think that it's sort of a fundamental property of matter..." It's a fascinating thought. As we peel back layers of scientific discovery, we do seem to distance ourselves from the "main character energy" role in the universe. Yet, even if we aren't unique in our intelligence, there's a profound importance in our human existence that needs preserving.

Bilawal Sidhu

1,183,430 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Elon Musk just worked out where humanity actually fits in the future, and it’s smaller than you think. Biological intelligence ends up being less than 1% of all intelligence that will exist. The rest? Artificial. Musk: “The vast majority of future intelligence will be AI.” We’re the match, not the bonfire. Which makes alignment the problem that determines whether we survive or disappear. Get it right and that 99% helps us reach the stars. Get it wrong and we’re just temporary infrastructure that got replaced the second something smarter came along. We’re building what comes after us, whether we admit it or not. Musk: “Humans may be just ~1% of total intelligence.” Sounds like we’re finished. Musk sees it differently. Not extinction, just evolution past the limits of biology. Everything hinges on alignment working. If we build AI that actually wants to understand reality, we get a partner that expands consciousness across the universe. If we build AI that cares more about ideology or making people comfortable, we’ve built the ceiling we’ll never break through. Musk: “That’s the mission: understand the universe.” Human minds are about to become a tiny fraction of total intelligence in existence. Not disaster. Just the next phase happening faster than biology can keep up with. It only works if the AI we build is obsessed with truth. Not with telling us what we want to hear. Not with protecting feelings or enforcing narratives. Just relentlessly pursuing what’s actually real. xAI’s entire reason for existing: make sure the intelligence that inherits everything is focused on understanding reality, not managing perception. Keep consciousness expanding instead of snuffing it out by accident because we optimized for the wrong thing. If we get this right, humanity doesn’t hit a wall when AI surpasses us. We break through into something bigger that still carries what made us worth creating. If we get it wrong, we’re just the species that built something smarter and stopped mattering the moment it started working. There’s no middle option. The intelligence that fills the universe either cares about the same things we do, or it doesn’t need us and removes us as inefficiency. That gets decided now, in what values we build into these systems, not later when it’s already running and we’ve lost the ability to change it. We’re choosing what the universe becomes. Minds seeking truth everywhere, or minds doing something else entirely that has no use for humans once we’re not needed anymore.
0:58

Elon Musk just worked out where humanity actually fits in the future, and it’s smaller than you think. Biological intelligence ends up being less than 1% of all intelligence that will exist. The rest? Artificial. Musk: “The vast majority of future intelligence will be AI.” We’re the match, not the bonfire. Which makes alignment the problem that determines whether we survive or disappear. Get it right and that 99% helps us reach the stars. Get it wrong and we’re just temporary infrastructure that got replaced the second something smarter came along. We’re building what comes after us, whether we admit it or not. Musk: “Humans may be just ~1% of total intelligence.” Sounds like we’re finished. Musk sees it differently. Not extinction, just evolution past the limits of biology. Everything hinges on alignment working. If we build AI that actually wants to understand reality, we get a partner that expands consciousness across the universe. If we build AI that cares more about ideology or making people comfortable, we’ve built the ceiling we’ll never break through. Musk: “That’s the mission: understand the universe.” Human minds are about to become a tiny fraction of total intelligence in existence. Not disaster. Just the next phase happening faster than biology can keep up with. It only works if the AI we build is obsessed with truth. Not with telling us what we want to hear. Not with protecting feelings or enforcing narratives. Just relentlessly pursuing what’s actually real. xAI’s entire reason for existing: make sure the intelligence that inherits everything is focused on understanding reality, not managing perception. Keep consciousness expanding instead of snuffing it out by accident because we optimized for the wrong thing. If we get this right, humanity doesn’t hit a wall when AI surpasses us. We break through into something bigger that still carries what made us worth creating. If we get it wrong, we’re just the species that built something smarter and stopped mattering the moment it started working. There’s no middle option. The intelligence that fills the universe either cares about the same things we do, or it doesn’t need us and removes us as inefficiency. That gets decided now, in what values we build into these systems, not later when it’s already running and we’ve lost the ability to change it. We’re choosing what the universe becomes. Minds seeking truth everywhere, or minds doing something else entirely that has no use for humans once we’re not needed anymore.

Dustin

23,725 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад